Needing a ride for dialysis? That's a beatin'.

FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

I thought it was customary to beat your kids for gas prices, and beat your wife for the phone bill.

/no, wait, never mind: he's got it right. beat the WIFE for the gas prices, and kids for the phone bill.

farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

This guy needs to switch to Sanka.

Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

Is that the wrong response?

Wait, so "battery on a person over 65" is a separate offence? I don't know why I find that amusing, I just do.

farfigneugan: Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

A 16 year old farking a 14 year old is not the same as an angry old guy beating up an old woman that is on dyalisis. I don't think it needs any more explaining than that.

If it does, then you're just dense.

Let's hope she learned her lesson

Wow, I was wrong.

I thought OPEC and the oil companies were responsible for high gas prices.

Turns out it was this guy's wife.

Way to go. Punch her a couple of times for me.

I'll explain my side, first, as a reference point for my perspective.

I can see him getting charged with Aggravated Battery, sure, but the part about it being a victim over 65 is silly. Just like in a case where there is an accused rape between a couple of minors, then it's not statutory rape, it's just plain ol' rape.

/it's not HBO
//It's just regular-ass tv.

A bit sappy but nice.

farfigneugan: Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

He beat up a person over 65. He is being charged with beating up a person over 65. The age of the assailant doesn't matter; its' the age of the victim that matters; in statutory rape cases the ages of both the victim and that assailant matter.

Close said that his life turned upside down when doctors in Illinois placed his wife on kidney dialysis.

Yes, he'd become accustomed to her serving and waiting on him all their lives, and suddenly he has to give up stuff and drive her for medical treatment for a change.

No sympathy for the selfish old fart.

Oh, and nice headline subby. I chuckled.

ConservativesBlow: farfigneugan: Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

A 16 year old farking a 14 year old is not the same as an angry old guy beating up an old woman that is on dyalisis. I don't think it needs any more explaining than that.

If it does, then you're just dense.

Ok, but he wasn't charged with aggravated battery and battery of someone on dyalisis. He's charged with aggravated battery and battery of someone of a certain age. I know a couple of guys that are in their teens and twenties that are on dialysis, doesn't really have anything to do with age.

See what you MADE ME DO?!?

HMS_Blinkin:
He beat up a person over 65. He is being charged with beating up a person over 65. The age of the assailant doesn't matter; its' the age of the victim that matters; in statutory rape cases the ages of both the victim and that assailant matter.

That's completely farkin' retarded. (that it's a law, not necessarily your post)

HMS_Blinkin:

Nope. If you're a 16 year old male and fark a 16 year old female, you can be charged with statutory rape. It happens all the time.

Have fun!

Sure a 77 year old man is not as strong as a 27 year old man. But a 77 year old woman's bones are not as strong as a 27 year old woman.

And with all the "get off my lawn" ass kickins we hear about on Fark, you don't think a 77 year old asshole can't deliver that to his wife instead of whippersnappers?

\think about it, won't you?

I'm sure this isn't the first time this poor woman took a beatin' from him. Once a wife beater...

farfigneugan: Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

I really need to?

Put simply, if the people involved here were in their mid-40's, assault would still of occured. If the people involved in a statutory rape case were both in their mid-40's, no statutory rape would have occured.

It's illegal to beat someone up, it's not illegal to have sex.

Really, there's two ways to look at it. On one hand, someone my age (28) beating up someone over 65 would be a lot worse than someone over 65 doing it, because younger people tend to be a lot stronger. On the other hand, people over 65 are a lot more fragile and prone to injury even over little things, so the age of the assailant doesn't change the fact that the victim is in much greater danger of injury than a younger victim would be.

HMS_Blinkin: farfigneugan: Supes: farfigneugan: FTFA:Authorities said Richard Close was charged with aggravated battery and battery on a person over 65.

WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 14 year old with statutory rape!!

No it's not. It's not even close in fact.

Explain.

He beat up a person over 65. He is being charged with beating up a person over 65. The age of the assailant doesn't matter; its' the age of the victim that matters; in statutory rape cases the ages of both the victim and that assailant matter.

YHBT.
HAND.

Sounds like the dude had issues long before the gas hike...

I agree with farfigneugan's general argument (all though I'm somewhat undecided on his metaphor). The spirit of the "assaulting someone over 65" law is to make the penalty extra stiff for the young and the healthy to prey on the weak and enfeebled. Since this guy is 77 and his wife is 74, in the eyes of the law they are both considered a class of citizens who needs special protection. Although this 77-year-old is obviously in better shape than his wife, he is still relatively weak, and hence it breaks the spirit of the law to charge him with this special statute. He should still be charged with assault, but not any special kind of assault.

stirfrybry: Let's hope she learned her lesson

I lol'd

The article doesn't say who's paying for the dialysis. I'll bet it's the taxpayers. So... this guy is getting, for free, some very expensive medical treatment that was undreamed of when he was born. And he's stewed up about the $6 he needs to pay for the trip to the clinic.

He needs perspective more than anything else. I'd say lock him up. He's probably going to need dialysis soon and, being in prison, he'll be saved from the aggravation about carfare again.

Dr. Nick Riviera: I agree with farfigneugan's general argument (all though I'm somewhat undecided on his metaphor).

Yeah, just to clarify I've only been arguing against his metaphor.

A better metaphor would be:

"WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 15 year old with aggravated rape because his 14-year-old victim was underage!!"

For those not familiar with domestic violence, let me illuminate:
Q. has he ever beaten her before?
A. every Saturday night, since 1968
Q. why didn't she leave him?
A. because her standard of living would then be determined by her own efforts, rather than his - she decided that the odd black eye was a reasonable exchange for free handyman service, chauffeur, cable TV and bon-bons.
Not how the femi-nazi media reports it?
Sorry, it's matrimonial law in every state: the legal presumption is that every occurrence, every event, every expenditure made by either party was either agreed to, or acquiesced to, by both parties. She makes him sleep on the couch, he beats her up: quid pro quo.

It's that "Nicole Simpson" dilemma; she bet that his money would last longer than his temper.
She was wrong.

God you people are dumbasses. Can't anyone see that the comparison of statutory rape to assault of a person over 65 is an ANALOGY? No, they aren't the same thing. They're ANALOGOUS.

Did someone say anal orgy?

rkl307: Sorry, it's matrimonial law in every state: the legal presumption is that every occurrence, every event, every expenditure made by either party was either agreed to, or acquiesced to, by both parties. She makes him sleep on the couch, he beats her up: quid pro quo.

So what about those "domestic dispute" arrests that are made in every state? What about people who go to jail for abusing their spouse? Guess those are just femi-nazi imaginary incidents. You need to renew your issue of Internet Tough-Guy magazine.

rkl307: For those not familiar with domestic violence, let me illuminate:
Q. has he ever beaten her before?
A. every Saturday night, since 1968
Q. why didn't she leave him?
A. because her standard of living would then be determined by her own efforts, rather than his - she decided that the odd black eye was a reasonable exchange for free handyman service, chauffeur, cable TV and bon-bons.
Not how the femi-nazi media reports it?
Sorry, it's matrimonial law in every state: the legal presumption is that every occurrence, every event, every expenditure made by either party was either agreed to, or acquiesced to, by both parties. She makes him sleep on the couch, he beats her up: quid pro quo.

It's that "Nicole Simpson" dilemma; she bet that his money would last longer than his temper.
She was wrong.

Damn, what a caveman way of thinking. Nobody should have to live with the threat of violence in their own home, regardless of who's paying the bills.

Upset about gas prices?

Step 1. Find nearest Bush supporter
Step 2. Beat the snot out of him
Step 3. You'll feel better, and have punished a farking idiot at the same time.

/Note: If you can find an oil executive, even better.

Supes: Dr. Nick Riviera: I agree with farfigneugan's general argument (all though I'm somewhat undecided on his metaphor).

Yeah, just to clarify I've only been arguing against his metaphor.

A better metaphor would be:

"WTF?!?! He's 77! That's like charging a 15 year old with aggravated rape because his 14-year-old victim was underage!!"

Can you get charged with statutory when the victim is over the age of consent? Honest question. I assumed you couldn't. Hence the metaphor that seems to have confused some of you.

theewhiterhino: Damn, what a caveman way of thinking. Nobody should have to live with the threat of violence in their own home, regardless of who's paying the bills.



Not cool, man!

dooder0001: God you people are dumbasses. Can't anyone see that the comparison of statutory rape to assault of a person over 65 is an ANALOGY? No, they aren't the same thing. They're ANALOGOUS.

No, no they're not analogous

::sigh::

/why do I even bother...

Price gouging?

SwiftFox: Close said that his life turned upside down when doctors in Illinois placed his wife on kidney dialysis.

Yes, he'd become accustomed to her serving and waiting on him all their lives, and suddenly he has to give up stuff and drive her for medical treatment for a change.

No sympathy for the selfish old fart.

Unless he had to drive her from Florida to Illinois for dialysis.

In all fairness, it's not like his kidneys were failing, why should he have to pay?

The explanation is quite simple : She was on kidney dialysis, so he figured that he would just beat the piss out of her!

farfigneugan:
Can you get charged with statutory when the victim is over the age of consent? Honest question. I assumed you couldn't. Hence the metaphor that seems to have confused some of you.

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the rational discourse.

You're saying this because the specific crime he was charged with was "assault and battery of someone over 65," a crime obviously contingent on the woman's age being over 65, like statutory rape requires someone to be underage. And clearly in that respect you're right.

My argument is, this crime is a heightened form of an existing crime. Maybe it shouldn't have been heightened because of the assailant's age. I'm not getting into that here (and in fact I might agree with you here).

Statutory rape simply isn't a crime if both people are of age. It just doesn't exist. Assault is always a crime.

Protected class vs. protected class crime

is it still a "hate crime" if BOTH parties are black/gay/young/old/transgendered/clowns/etc.?

bot we don't EVEN want to go there.

Oil companies:

1. Wait for old people to need dialysis
2. Raise oil prices
3. Profit!!

I guess it's only fair to ask: is she hawt?

Maybe his wife drives a Hummer in poor repair.